news, latest-news,
A tribunal has awarded four international students $5000 after their “aggressive” subletter tried to make them stick to shoddy tenancy agreements and “shirt-fronted” one of them. The subletter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, once threatened to share his four tenants’ passport details with the Chinese community and the territory government. The subletter also threatened to share the details of his tenants’ purported rent defaults. He charged two of the students a combined $450 a week to live in one bedroom of his two-bedroom rental apartment, and the other two students a combined $440 to live in the remaining room. The subletter owned the unit next door, and included invalid terms in the students’ tenancy agreements. He referred to the extra terms as “house rules”. The tenancy agreements required that the students “respect the landlord or landlady”, clean the kitchens, toilet, dishwasher and shower at the unit daily, and be contactable via WeChat, phone or email. They prohibited the students from having parties or pets, stated that the owner could inspect the unit if he gave 10-hours’ notice, and said the owner could enter the tenants’ rooms without permission if they violated the house rules. The tenancy agreements said, “any slandering, or attacking online will be recorded and evidenced for the local police reference”, and, “violating these items, the owner has the right to evict the tenant by law”. READ MORE: In a decision published by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, senior tribunal member Allan Anforth said none of the house rules had been properly endorsed, and some were “plainly void”. He said the students had been wrongly made to fork out $200 as a bond for keys to the unit, and their legitimate bonds hadn’t been lodged with the office of rental bonds. Mr Anforth noted the tribunal was shown two videos in which the subletter went into the unit without consent – something he didn’t have the right to do – and “directly confronted the tenants in an aggressive manner”. The tribunal member said it was clear that, on one occasion, the subletter instilled fear into his two young female tenants. On another occasion, he snatched a male tenant’s phone and shirt-fronted him. Police once detained the subletter when he entered the unit against the express instructions of the tenants. Mr Anforth said the subletter made the students pay utilities when they didn’t have to, and blocked their access to the mailbox and a parking bay. He said the subletter once entered the young female tenants’ bedroom during an inspection, asked them to leave and moved their belongings. The students only lived at the unit for about eight weeks, but Mr Anforth said those weeks were marred by “intense” disturbances “characterised by aggression”. He said the students were entitled to get their bonds back – the subletter had already obliged – and the tribunal member awarded the students an additional combined payout of about $4850. The payout mostly accounted for breaches of the students’ quiet enjoyment. For faster access to the latest Canberra news, download The Canberra Times app for iOS and Android.
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/pMXRnDj3SUU44AkPpn97sC/2428ea70-29e9-48c7-b666-d50867a50761.jpg/r0_351_4928_3135_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
A tribunal has awarded four international students $5000 after their “aggressive” subletter tried to make them stick to shoddy tenancy agreements and “shirt-fronted” one of them.
The subletter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, once threatened to share his four tenants’ passport details with the Chinese community and the territory government. The subletter also threatened to share the details of his tenants’ purported rent defaults.
He charged two of the students a combined $450 a week to live in one bedroom of his two-bedroom rental apartment, and the other two students a combined $440 to live in the remaining room.
The subletter owned the unit next door, and included invalid terms in the students’ tenancy agreements. He referred to the extra terms as “house rules”.
The tenancy agreements required that the students “respect the landlord or landlady”, clean the kitchens, toilet, dishwasher and shower at the unit daily, and be contactable via WeChat, phone or email.
They prohibited the students from having parties or pets, stated that the owner could inspect the unit if he gave 10-hours’ notice, and said the owner could enter the tenants’ rooms without permission if they violated the house rules.
The tenancy agreements said, “any slandering, or attacking online will be recorded and evidenced for the local police reference”, and, “violating these items, the owner has the right to evict the tenant by law”.
In a decision published by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, senior tribunal member Allan Anforth said none of the house rules had been properly endorsed, and some were “plainly void”.
He said the students had been wrongly made to fork out $200 as a bond for keys to the unit, and their legitimate bonds hadn’t been lodged with the office of rental bonds.
Mr Anforth noted the tribunal was shown two videos in which the subletter went into the unit without consent – something he didn’t have the right to do – and “directly confronted the tenants in an aggressive manner”.
The tribunal member said it was clear that, on one occasion, the subletter instilled fear into his two young female tenants. On another occasion, he snatched a male tenant’s phone and shirt-fronted him.
Police once detained the subletter when he entered the unit against the express instructions of the tenants.
Mr Anforth said the subletter made the students pay utilities when they didn’t have to, and blocked their access to the mailbox and a parking bay.
He said the subletter once entered the young female tenants’ bedroom during an inspection, asked them to leave and moved their belongings.
The students only lived at the unit for about eight weeks, but Mr Anforth said those weeks were marred by “intense” disturbances “characterised by aggression”.
He said the students were entitled to get their bonds back – the subletter had already obliged – and the tribunal member awarded the students an additional combined payout of about $4850. The payout mostly accounted for breaches of the students’ quiet enjoyment.
